Crookson is toxic. Better get rid of him before it's too late.
there is no reasoning. there is no info for the fans. Crookson's info that just came out and a few leaked reports is all we have.ebandit said:All I can find is the CN report.....has anybody found anything where there is any kind of explanation as to the reasoning behind these changes?
Even when Mark L called me a troll and said I have an anti Cookson agenda I stuck to my opinion that McQuaid was better. Appears I might not have been that far off after all.thehog said:Clearly he is 'influnced'. Prior to the elections I was ridiculed for suggesting this would happen. The SkySports Super Cycling Challenge Series (SSSCCS) coming to a SkySports TV channel near you.
Better article here. It's been in play for a while.mrhender said:A bit more here:
But it is hardly detailed reasoning...
What would prevent Sky Sports buying coverage of the existing events?thehog said:Clearly he is 'influnced'. Prior to the elections I was ridiculed for suggesting this would happen. The SkySports Super Cycling Challenge Series (SSSCCS) coming to a SkySports TV channel near you.
As with Flo, let's just remember who started this particular ball rolling.the sceptic said:Even when Mark L called me a troll and said I have an anti Cookson agenda I stuck to my opinion that McQuaid was better. Appears I might not have been that far off after all.
The need for doping will always be there. People dope in every single sport in the world regardless. (except for track cycling)ebandit said:I wouldn't get too triumphant just yet.......not enough detail as to what is going to happen.
Seeing as how this is being debated in the Clinic.....I wonder if there are any aspects of this related to anti-doping......one of the things that can be picked up from the limited details is that it is purporting to be partly about attracting sponsors.....is it a strategy to reduce the need for doping by reducing the number of days in the key GTs?...and thereby hope to secure more investment from wary sponsors?.....this wouldn't be the first time this has been suggested....and indeed riders have said it themselves
But mine has excellent Cookson reasoningthehog said:
I think it is important that everyone buys into what we come up with at the end of the day and has ownership of it, because some changes will be required,” Cookson told Cyclingnews recently, refusing to go into detail.
I don't want to comment on any one issue.
“I also don't want to give any specific.....................
I'm not going to be a hostage to fortune in that way,
Perhaps it's a little archaic in the way its democratic structure operates but if you're a member of a national federation, you have a voice. I urge people to join their national federations around the world rather than send angry tweets.
We have the final word
the sceptic said:That is indeed classic Cookson. He is all about transparency!
Right. But several months on and no news from UCI. Nada, noppes, forcing Benson to go out and go find some answers.Back in June, when Froome first raised a possible issue over a lack of testing, the UCI responded by saying they would investigate the matter. At the time a spokesperson for the governing body told the BBC that "We're looking into the matter with the Cycling Anti-Doping Foundation."
Several months on and Cyclingnews approached the UCI, asking if they could confirm if tests had been carried out in Tenerife this year. They responded by saying that, "the efficiency of any anti-doping testing strategy relies on the unpredictable nature of the testing location and the element of surprise. Therefore, it is in no one's interest that the UCI and/or the CADF communicate on the number of tests carried out in specific regions."
Perhaps you could start? Rather than your usual loitering around threads critiquing posters and dropping in pictures of Froome/Cound for purposes to bait.TailWindHome said:It would be interesting if someone could articulate why they think these changes are a bad idea.
Agree, it's quite tiresome with these posters who exist solely to nitpick and question other people and never contribute anything to any debate themselves.thehog said:
I'd like to hear their position on the matter. Contribution and discussion is important. I look forward to the summary of Cookson latest comments.the sceptic said:Agree, it's quite tiresome with these posters who exist solely to nitpick and question other people and never contribute anything to any debate themselves.